On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:54 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Will it handle the case of MPOL_INTERLEAVE policy on a shm segment that
> > is mapped by tasks in different, possibly disjoint, cpusets. Local
> > allocation does, and my patch does. That was one of the primary
> > goals--to address an issue that Christoph has with shared policies.
> > cpusets really muck these up!
>
> It probably won't handle that. I don't get along too well with shmem.
Not surprising :). shmem doesn't get along too well with cpusets.
>
> Can you to an anti-shmem bigot how MPOL_INTERLEAVE should work with
^ explain ?
> shmem segments mapped in diverse ways by different tasks in different
> cpusets? What would be the key attribute(s) of a proper solution?
> Maybe if we keep it simple enough, I can avoid mucking it up too much
> this time around.
Personally, I'm of the opinion "if it hurts when you do that, don't do
that". I have uses for shared memory and mempolicies on the same, but
they don't involve sharing shmem [nor mapped files] between cpusets nor
dynamically changing cpusets. So, my approach would be to document the
issues clearly [another reason I'd like to see cpuset man pages] and
make sure that folks can't accidentally trip over them. But, I suppose
all the documentation in the world won't stop some people from hurting
themselves. As my grandmother used to tell me, "children and fools
shouldn't play with sharp tools." [Then she'd always ask me, "Which one
are you?" I guess time has answered that question...]
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
